Kendirjian v Ayoub

This case involved an appeal by the appellant, Mr. Kendirjian, against a decision of the primary judge concerning damages awarded following a motor vehicle accident. The respondent was Mr. Ayoub. The appellant contended that the damages awarded were inadequate, particularly in relation to his physical and psychological disabilities.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in his assessment of the appellant's damages, specifically in relation to non-economic loss, and whether the primary judge's findings on the appellant's credibility and the extent of his disabilities were adequately supported by the evidence. The court was also required to consider whether the primary judge's reasons for judgment were sufficient and whether any substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. Furthermore, the conduct of the appellant's legal representatives in relation to written submissions and the potential for wasted costs were also matters for determination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable misuse of the primary judge's position in assessing the video evidence and the appellant's credibility. The court held that the primary judge was entitled to find that the appellant's evidence regarding his disability could not always be accepted as reliable and required corroboration. The court also found that the primary judge's observation that the appellant's behaviour while giving evidence was "bizarre" did not manifest a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the primary judge had considered various aspects of the appellant's injuries, including the laminectomy, lumbar canal stenosis, and urological symptoms, in his assessment of damages, even if not all evidence was explicitly detailed in the section on non-economic loss.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court also made orders regarding further written submissions concerning the payment of costs on an indemnity basis and the allocation of wasted costs, which were to be paid by the appellant's legal representatives due to serious neglect.